Techdirt. Stories filed under "interference"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "interference"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 3 Oct 2014 06:18:00 PDTTSA Kangaroo Court Rubber Stamps TSA Fining Guy Who Stripped Naked, Completely Dismissing Court Ruling Finding It LegalMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141002/14204528703/tsa-kangaroo-court-rubber-stamps-tsa-fining-guy-who-stripped-naked-completely-dismissing-court-ruling-finding-it-legal.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141002/14204528703/tsa-kangaroo-court-rubber-stamps-tsa-fining-guy-who-stripped-naked-completely-dismissing-court-ruling-finding-it-legal.shtmlnot the John Brennan who is now director of the CIA) who decided to strip naked at a TSA screening area in an airport to protest the screening process. As we noted, a federal judge acquitted Brennan on First Amendment grounds, noting that he was engaged in a public protest, and that the nudity was a form of protected expression, not subject to indecent exposure laws.

No matter, apparently, for the TSA, who just went ahead and fined Brennan anyway claiming Brennan "interfered with screening personnel in the performance of their duties" (a violation of this rather broad law). As Lowering the Bar notes, this charge is bogus -- and is basically the same thing as when police arrest people filming them under similar charges:

[The TSA] fined him $1,000 for doing this, claiming he had "interfered" with screening operations when he took off all his clothes. As I discussed here, and then again here, that's the same bullshit argument police use when they arrest people for filming them—we had to come over there and stop you from doing something you're constitutionally entitled to do, and so you "interfered" with us. But that logic makes perfect sense to the TSA, and in particular to the administrative-law judge (a TSA employee) who upheld the penalty (reduced to $500) in April. Brennan appealed.

You'll never guess what happened next -- or, wait, actually you will:

Because this is an agency proceeding, the initial appeal is still within the agency, in this case to the deputy administrator. And as I mentioned above, because I didn't want you to be on pins and needles wondering what happened, he affirmed the ruling. The final order (PDF via PapersPlease.org) is again based entirely on the "no, you interfered with us" argument (about which I feel as described above). This also has the benefit (for the TSA) of making the law irrelevant. In fact, the deputy administrator says in his opinion, "I agree with TSA"—of which he is the deputy administrator—"that Respondent's arguments regarding the legality of the nudity are not relevant." Well, that's handy.

Handy indeed to be able to ignore a federal court saying that the activity was constitutionally-protected free speech.

Oh, and it gets more ridiculous. Apparently, the TSA review of the matter said the fine is appropriate because the whole three minutes that things were delayed was horrible for TSA efficiency:

By the way, he admits in his opinion that the checkpoint was closed "for approximately three minutes" as a result of the incident, yet affirms the finding that because of this, the agents "were not able to conduct screening in an efficient manner on other passengers present at the checkpoint." So the TSA is claiming here, with a straight face, not only that it screens passengers "in an efficient manner" to begin with but that it is so efficient that punishment is justified if you delay it by three minutes.

I don't know about you, but I've been pointlessly delayed by much more than three minutes by the TSA approximately EVERY TIME I HAVE FLOWN DURING THE PAST DECADE, so I would describe that claim as farcical.

I'm still wondering how any of this is making us safer. I'm guessing I'll have to keep waiting on that one...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>well-of-coursehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141002/14204528703Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:30:50 PDTAndrew Cuomo Investigated For Corruption In Blocking Investigations Into CorruptionMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140723/17362127983/andrew-cuomo-investigated-corruption-blocking-investigations-into-corruption.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140723/17362127983/andrew-cuomo-investigated-corruption-blocking-investigations-into-corruption.shtmlAndrew Cuomo's activities. When he was Attorney General, he often used that position to grandstand around various issues that sounded good politically, but were real world disasters. He browbeat ISPs into policing the internet, when they had no legal obligation to, with bogus threats of lawsuits -- even pushing them to install spyware to snoop on everyone's traffic. He was among the leaders of the group of Attorneys General who wanted to blame high-profile internet companies for the way consumers used them, and he tried to broker a "3 strikes" system to kick file sharers offline. Since becoming governor, he's been embroiled in a bunch of scandals, including having staffers use private email accounts to hide their work from Freedom of Information laws.

Now, however, things are heating up. The NY Times has reported that Cuomo's greatly hyped "corruption commission" appeared to be nothing more than a front group for Cuomo himself. That is, he seemed fine with it investigating "corruption" of others, but if it came anywhere near him or his friends, Cuomo's people ordered the commission to back away -- and they did. The crowning anecdote:

It was barely two months old when its investigators, hunting for violations of campaign-finance laws, issued a subpoena to a media-buying firm that had placed millions of dollars’ worth of advertisements for the New York State Democratic Party.

The investigators did not realize that the firm, Buying Time, also counted Mr. Cuomo among its clients, having bought the airtime for his campaign when he ran for governor in 2010.

Word that the subpoena had been served quickly reached Mr. Cuomo’s most senior aide, Lawrence S. Schwartz. He called one of the commission’s three co-chairs, William J. Fitzpatrick, the district attorney in Syracuse.

“This is wrong,” Mr. Schwartz said, according to Mr. Fitzpatrick, whose account was corroborated by three other people told about the call at the time. He said the firm worked for the governor, and issued a simple directive:

“Pull it back.”

The subpoena was swiftly withdrawn. The panel’s chief investigator explained why in an email to the two other co-chairs later that afternoon.

“They apparently produced ads for the governor,” she wrote.

That last line is fairly incredible, isn't it? They don't even come up with any kind of excuse. They just admit that when the government asked them to stop digging into things involving his friends, they did. The NY Times article is incredibly damning, highlighting how Cuomo promised the committee would be totally independent, even directly saying that it was free to investigate him and his associates. But, the reality was quite different. And Cuomo doesn't seem to care. His response is that of course he was allowed to meddle in the commission's affairs since it was his commission. Here's what Cuomo said when the commission was set up:

Mr. Cuomo said early on that the commission would be “totally independent” and free to pursue wrongdoing anywhere in state government, including in his own office. “Anything they want to look at, they can look at — me, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, any senator, any assemblyman,” he said last August.

Here's what his "office" said now in response to the NYT's inquiry about the story:

First, your fundamental assertion is that the Commission was independent. It wasn't. No
Moreland Commission can be independent from the Governor's office. It is purely a creation of
the Governor's power under the law, which vests subpoena power in the Governor or his
designee.

Right. Furthermore, Cuomo's response is that it would be a conflict of interest for the panel to investigate the governor, since he had appointed them. Talk about a brilliant anti-corruption strategy. The prevailing party gets to appoint the panel, block its use against any friends or those in the ruling party, and then the panel can only target the Governor's enemies. Damn. That's sneaky. And obnoxious. And, well, it seems to us, incredibly corrupt.

The corruption here is different — and much much worse. If an aid to the chief corruption reformer in NY has corruptly interfered with a corruption investigation, then NY doesn’t need that “corruption reformer” anymore — because that’s not what he is.

If this charge is true, then this is a governor who believes himself above the law. THAT is the keystone of corruption.

Lessig notes that Cuomo should resign over this scandal, though it seems unlikely that will happen. Either way, the level of corruption infiltrating our government these days is absolutely sickening. Federal prosecutors are apparently now investigating the situation, though, it's not all that often that those in power will take down "one of their own." Sure, it happens (pretty much all the time if you're in Illinois), but chances are Cuomo will skate by this one as well. Because that's how the system functions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>incrediblehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140723/17362127983Fri, 17 May 2013 11:29:00 PDTLots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They FlyMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtmlhad no ability to turn off. I looked. There was no power button. There was nothing in the software that was a "turn off" function. The only way to turn it off was to pull out the battery. I did that on a few flights and then figured it was stupid. So I stopped. And nothing happened. With my current phone, I've tried to "turn it off" but even when it says it's turning off it's not really turning off (because when I switch the battery, it takes about 3 minutes to boot up -- but if I "turn it off" and then turn it back on, it's ready to go within a second). Today, I still always put it into flight mode, but that's it. I turn off the screen and put the phone away, but I don't "turn it off" because it's pretty clear the phone doesn't actually turn off. And the requirement is silly. Similarly, my tablet stays on in my bag and my laptop is generally in "sleep" mode, but not off.

In another segment of the study, passengers were asked if they turn their devices to “off” when instructed to do so by the pilot. Although 59 percent of passengers said they do fully turn their electronics off, 21 percent said they often simply switch to “airplane mode,” which disables the main radios of a gadget. Five percent sometimes adhere to the rule. And others were either unsure or do not carry electronic devices on a plane.

People give all sorts of reasons for why the devices should be turned off, but none of them make much sense. There is the interference question, but given how many of these devices stay on, there would be at least some real evidence of interference by now if that were really a big concern. There is the "gotta pay attention to the flight attendants" argument, but then they wouldn't let you sleep or read a book during takeoff. There's the "flying device is dangerous if something goes wrong" argument, but that applies equally to books. So, what is the reasoning? There's either some reason that no one's explaining... or just a ridiculous overabundance of caution where it's clearly not necessary.

Of course, as I was finishing up this post, someone passed along a Bloomberg video that claims that phones do interfere with flight GPS. If you look at at the text that goes with the video, they cite a story of a flight that went off course until flight attendants convinced someone to turn off an iPhone. However, nowhere in the video do they even mention that story or give any data or support for that claim. The video claims are also suspect. They name a single study from nearly a decade ago talking about a single phone, which is no longer on the market, that caused some interference. The other "studies" they look at include a very small number of claims from pilots who claim problems and that they "suspect" interference from phones, but those are never confirmed. They found 75 such claims over six years, but without any evidence to back them up.

Again, given how often people leave their devices on, you would expect a lot more verifiable evidence beyond a few pilots "suspecting" that phones were the problem, when a variety of other variables might have been a part of it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>and-no-damage-yethttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130510/13023123037Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:04:49 PSTPeopleBrowsr Gets Temporary Restraining Order Against Twitter For 'Felony Interference With A Business Model'Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121129/14255421177/peoplebrowsr-gets-temporary-restraining-order-against-twitter-felony-interference-with-business-model.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121129/14255421177/peoplebrowsr-gets-temporary-restraining-order-against-twitter-felony-interference-with-business-model.shtml"felony interference of a business model" -- a term coined by Steven Bellovin a while ago as shorthand for lawsuits that are much more about a company who bet on the wrong business model, than any actual legal wrongs. Normally, this relates to legacy companies upset at upstarts who win through the disruptive judo of taking a totally different approach. But it can be seen in other arenas as well. We've also talked, for example, about how odd it is that some companies appear to base their entire business on what some other company does -- and they seem wholly unprepared for a situation in which the company they are 100% reliant on changes. As venture capitalist Fred Wilson has summarized, a good company can't be someone else's bitch.

Both of those concepts seem relevant given the news that a startup called PeopleBrowsr has successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against Twitter for changing how it doles out access to its "Firehose" (i.e., the raw stream of all public tweets). As has been covered widely, over the last few months, Twitter has really clamped down on some of its more open practices lately. I actually agree with many people that I'm not sure this is a smart long-term business move, but I can't see how it could possibly be a legal violation. Yet, that's what PeopleBrowsr appears to be claiming. Of course, its Firehose offering has long been an offering that companies had to work out a deal with Twitter to get access to, so even then it was never fully "open."

As part of the changing business strategy, Twitter has cut off many of its "Firehose" partners, including PeopleBrowsr. In response, PeopleBrowsr sued arguing that this change has a negative impact on PeopleBrowsr's business (apparently true), and thus it must be illegal. The company highlights how it has all sorts of highly valuable deals with other companies because of its analytics of Twitter's Firehose.

PeopleBrowsr's products are highly valuable to its users, who utilize them to
extract relevant information from the massive Twitter stream, as well as to organizations
marketing their messages or brands. PeopleBrowsr has entered into valid contracts including: (1)
a three-year, $3 million contract with defense contractor Strategic Technology Research, (2) a
long term, $400,000 contract with Cadalys to build a customized Kred application, (3) a long
term, $300,000 contract with Radian6 to incorporate Kred into its products, (4) a long term,
$400,000 contract with Badgeville to incorporate Kred into its products, (5) a contract with
Mashable to power its mRank product through PeopleBrowsr's API, and (6) a contract for at least
one year with DynamicLogic, worth at least $75,000. PeopleBrowsr has business relationships
that are likely to ripen into new business with firms including Dell Computer, Demand Media,
Ogilvy, Bell-Pottinger, and CBS Interactive, among others.

It is not difficult to understand why PeopleBrowsr is upset that Twitter decided to end the relationship, even as PeopleBrowsr claims to pay over $1 million a year to Twitter for access to the Firehose. The key argument that PeopleBrowsr makes, is that Twitter has, in the past, made various statements concerning its embrace of an open platform that allows others to build on top of their work. But I'm not sure why that's actually relevant here. PeopleBrowsr obviously knew that Firehose wasn't completely open since it signed two separate licensing agreements with Twitter (according to its own filing). In fact, they explicitly note that the agreement has a termination provision, so PeopleBrowsr had to know it was a possibility. In addition, most of the statements about openness that PeopleBrowsr cites, are vague statements about the importance of openness. Even the specific comments about keeping Firehose open are things like an engineer noting that he's "fighting to keep access to the Firehose and other API's as open as possible," which should have clearly indicated to PeopleBrowsr that the entire company was not in agreement, and there was a very real chance that it would not remain so open.

In the end, it really seems like the problem is entirely PeopleBrowsr's for building a business in which it relied almost entirely on a single relationship, and did not set up the contract to ensure that relationship would not go away. Again, I'm not sure that Twitter's strategy here is smart, but it's difficult to see how it's illegal. The problems seem entirely self-created by PeopleBrowsr. It even seems to admit that it bet its entire business on this fact, without securing a contract that they knew would last.

The Firehose is an essential input for PeopleBrowsr's business. PeopleBrowsr's
products function by creating a comprehensive view of Twitter activity, and a mere sample of
Twitter's data is not sufficient to provide the sophisticated analytics PeopleBrowsr's clients have
contracted for.

All that says is that perhaps they shouldn't have put things in their client contracts that they really couldn't promise they'd have access to -- or they should have put together a much more solid agreement with Twitter in the first place. While PeopleBrowsr may have won a temporary injunction, preventing Twitter from turning off its access to Firehose for the time being, it seems like a massive long shot to think that it can possibly win this lawsuit. Yes, it sucks that the one partner you bet your business on is changing its own ways of doing business, but that's what happens when you bet your business model on being someone else's "bitch."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>someone-else's-bitchhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121129/14255421177Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:01:00 PSTWhy You Should Regret LightSquared's SetbacksDerek Kertonhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120220/05554317814/why-you-should-regret-lightsquareds-setbacks.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120220/05554317814/why-you-should-regret-lightsquareds-setbacks.shtml
Note that, while LightSquared DID knock out GPS devices, it was not LightSquared that transmitted on the GPS frequencies, but rather the GPS devices that sloppily "listen" to the adjacent LightSquared frequencies. The GPS chipsets were generally cheaply made with inadequate filtering. That said, who is at fault is irrelevant: it remains LightSquared's problem to solve if they want to launch their network. A long history of spectrum policy states that new entrants must not mess up the existing radio devices.

What we've lost here is the chance to have a truly innovative wireless carrier which would have stimulated competition, energized the vendor community, and provided a white-label network for MVNOs. LightSquared had, in fact, signed up dozens of partners who would offer LTE wireless services as cellular companies, CE makers, and store brands like Best Buy, for example, who could sell connectivity in a bundle with laptops. Maisie Ramsay over at Wireless Week explains how a vast community of over 30 technology vendors have also lost a valuable path to market.

What strikes me, as someone who works with wireless carriers (LightSquared included), is that we may lose one of the scrappiest players out there. And markets thrive when a scrappy player stirs up the pot. Hutchison Whampoa stirred up the UK markets when it launched 3G in 2003, Free is currently doing the same in France. In the USA, we have regional players like Metro PCS, but nothing at the national level. My role at the Telecom Council of Silicon Valley is right where innovators meet with the telcos, and it was gratifying to see the tornado of new ideas, vendors, and possibilities that came about with a new network. Without legacy systems nor legacy thinking, lots of great ideas are free to emerge.

For now, with LightSquared's options dwindling, we may have to have to look elsewhere for new competition and open creativity. The WiFi space is fairly promising, as the spread of hotspots continues to soar, and new versions (802.11ac) promise greater range and throughput. Chipsets are cheap, and billions of WiFi devices have been produced. Republic Wireless exemplifies the possibilities of leveraging WiFi in mobile phones to the limit. Lots of people are hoping that the "white spaces" frequencies in between TV channels will be offered up to a WiFi variant, which will mean low-frequency spectrum that penetrates walls and buildings much better than today's WiFi. I like what the US carriers have done with the (globally) early launch of LTE, but there's no doubt that with increased competition we'd have a more dynamic market.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>competition-is-goodhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120220/05554317814Wed, 5 May 2010 19:10:24 PDTSirius XM Not Happy With The FCC, AgainCarlo Longinohttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100503/0947129280.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100503/0947129280.shtmlmolasses-like speed with which the Commission moved to approve the Sirius-XM merger and the silly restrictions it attached to its approval -- measures which helped push the company into bankruptcy. The animosity is bubbling up again, as Sirius XM isn't happy that the FCC may soon allow some radio spectrum that's near the company's spectrum to be used for wireless broadband services. The spectrum in question is in the 2.3 GHz range. One chunk of it was auctioned off to telcos in 1997, and it's since been used for fixed backhaul transmissions for their networks, but the FCC (and the telcos) would like to see it used for wireless broadband services like WiMAX. An adjoining chunk is used by Sirius XM's network of terrestrial repeaters that complement its satellite signal coverage, and the company is concerned about those repeaters being overpowered and interfered with. This is the typical sort of posturing that comes out of any company who has spectrum that's "threatened" -- like broadcasters seeking to use regulation to stifle any competition from new technologies. The interference issues are important, but the FCC knows that, and typically works to ensure that they aren't a problem. What makes this objection from Sirius XM a little bit ironic, though, is that the the two companies have been cited in the past by the FCC because their terrestrial repeaters violated interference rules. Rules that allow for the more flexible use of spectrum -- while respecting interference -- are the best way forward for everyone, and like the NAB's spurious arguments against the Sirius-XM merger, the satellite company's objections should be rejected here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>ironyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100503/0947129280Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:38:11 PSTNAB Cries To The Court About White Spaces Spectrum PlansCarlo Longinohttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1720033972.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1720033972.shtml"white spaces" spectrum that lies in between TV broadcasts for other uses. The white spaces are unused spectrum that sit in between TV broadcasters' signals. They were important in analog broadcasts to keep stations' signals from interfering with each other, but they are less crucial in digital broadcasts (like the ones the US will eventually switch to). White spaces proponents say that they can effectively be reused by unlicensed devices that can seek out empty spectrum and use it to communicate, without interfering with licensed broadcasts, and the FCC concurred -- and, of course, made that a key part of its approval of the technologies. But as ever, the National Association of Broadcasters disagrees, and has sued to block usage of the white spaces, arguing it will interfere with their members' broadcasts.

We might be more sympathetic to the NAB's claim if it didn't have such a long and glorious history of trying to stifle anything that competes with incumbent broadcasters, and have such an annoying way of doing it. The FCC has put significant stipulations in place to ensure that white space devices don't cause interference, and despite the NAB's contention, the prototypes that failed in the testing process didn't do so. The FCC got it right by approving use of the white spaces with the restrictions and rules it put in place to tame interference; the NAB has once again got it wrong by trying to stifle innovation, and perhaps competition.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>same-old-storyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090303/1720033972Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:19:55 PDTSome Hospitals Not Just Encouraging Mobile Phone Usage, But Installing Technology To Make It EasierMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/023013.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/023013.shtmlnot be much of a problem and soon doctors from around the world were clamoring for the right to use their own mobile phones. A recent study even found tremendous benefits in allowing mobile phone usage in hospitals, including better communication among staff members and lower error rates, thanks to that improved communication. The latest is that some hospitals aren't just allowing mobile phone usage, they're making it possible by installing local antennas to make it even easier for mobile phones to work. The hospitals point out that this is likely to lower the likelihood of interference, as the mobile phones don't have to broadcast as strong a signal if the "tower" is so close. Then, of course, there's the benefit of having happier patients who can more easily stay in touch with friends and family (and also making it easier for those friends and family members to visit). All in all it seems to make a lot of sense, though there are still some holdouts among hospitals that don't feel there's enough evidence to allow mobile phones into hospitals just yet.